2 Dim a, c As x a = New x( ) c = New x( ) . . . If a Is c Then (Perform Z) End If
[0012] Suppose the code represented by the ellipses has resulted in the situation illustrated in FIG. 1b: variable a 256 is pointing to memory location 254 and variable c 262 is also pointing to memory location 256. When the If statement is executed, Z will be performed because variables a 256 and c 262 both point to the same location (location 254) in memory.
variable c 262 is also pointing to memory location 256
variables a 256 and c 262 both point to the same location (location 254)
Isn't one of the requirements for a patent that the invention work?
Class imbalances, mage types appeared to have a major advantage over all other classes
I don't get this. I started a mage and it wasn't that easy. I switched to a hunter and it's much easier. You can tank (not as well as a warrior) and you get a great pet at level 10 along with excellent ranged attacks. I could have mobs my own level down to 2/3 before they got to me... With the mage, you pretty much had to blast them down to nothing before they got to you because you couldn't take a hit, which is how it should be. My Hunter can solo 2 mobs his own level easily, the mage couldn't.
Whiny kids asking for everbody in general chat to guide them through every single quest regardless of whether the quest log told them exactly what to do. Mind you that when the lag occured they were the first to type, "OMG!!!!11111 LAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGG"
I didn't run into this much, and I just didn't pay attention to General chat much. On the upside, people have so far been very friendly and willing to help.
So he has memorized the phone book for every town in the US? Oh, and the student had his own name in his hometown phone book and not his parents' names? This just seems fishy to me. Maybe it's just not told very well...
Maybe 'funny'... Is this supposed to mean he could cure himself? Oh, wait, he would just know what everyone else knows about the disease and not how to cure it...
This comes from an EQ background (played DAOC for a while too)... Some of the things I like about WOW:
No exp penalty for death - I don't think a game should seriously punish you for wanting to explore. If you die in WOW, your ghost appears in a graveyard in the area and you just have to follow the mini-map back to your corpse. You get resurrected with 1/2 mana and health for free. The only penalty is the time it takes you to get back to your corpse. A game is supposed to be fun and exciting. In EQ I found myself killing safe mobs because if I died I would have to spend an hour or two getting that experience back. Now you can actually feel more like a hero and take a chance every now and then.
MINIMAP! - You have a map of the large area with roads and rivers displayed on it, as well as a mini-map showing exactly where you are in the local area. People in the next stage for your current quests are shown on the minimap, as well as your party members and (hopefully not) your corpse. Also you can ask guards in any town for directions if you want to find your trainer, someone to do with tradeskills, the bank, or other things, then a marker is placed on the large map and the mini-map.
QUESTS! - You don't have to walk around to every person and talk to them to see if they have a quest. If someone has a quest for you, a yellow exclaimation mark is over their head. Now you don't have to search the fan sites to find out what the quests are, you can just play the game. Also they quests are fun and plentiful, and actually give you good rewards (exp, cash, and items)
Tradeskills - So far at least, you just get trained and have recipees for things you can make. If you want to make something, you click the tradekill button and pick a recipe. If you have the items, hit 'Create'. You can even batch create a lot of the same kind of item if you have the materials. I hated having to look up or find the formulas for things in EQ and then having to deal with failures. The free tradeskills cooking and fishing look interesting too.
Downtime - So far at level 8, it only takes a short while to regenerate health and mana while sitting, even less time if you eat or drink something. I hope this continues into higher levels, I hated meditating for 5 minutes after each kill in EQ.
PVP - One thing I liked about DAOC was the feeling of being on a team and being able to engage in PVP if you wanted, or be safe if you wanted. I've only seen one member of the horde and chased him out. In normal servers in WOW, you are safe unless you attack a player of the other side, then you have a PVP flag set for 5 minutes during which the other team can attack you. If you don't want to do PVP, just don't attack anyone.
Items - EQ was all about camping monsters to get that uber-item or an item you needed for a quest to get an uber-item. I don't think WOW will be like that, the equipment doesn't seem to confer that much of an advantage.
And conversely if your candidate is doing poorly, it may be the motivation someone needs to go out and vote. The vote in Iowa last year wasn't as close as in Florida (it was 4000 some votes), but that was only 2 votes per precinct. If I got two people to go vote and someone else in each precinct did the same, the winner would have been different.
Could you name a respected creationist that makes the argument that "life is too complicated for us to understand, so a higher being must have created it." I've never seen that argument from a respected creationist.
That's the whole idea behind "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design teaches that life is so complex that someone or something must have created it, it could not have formed from natural processes. Bible-thumping creationists cannot get their ideas into schools because they include God so they came up with ID which only hints at God.
As for the creation of the Sun and the Earth, Astronomers have observed such things happening in other parts of our galaxy. Discs of gas and dust spin and they have modeled it forming clumps for planets and the center collapsing and heating to form a star.
There is no scientific proof for the theistic or the atheistic view on the origin of life. Why the atheistic gets the favored son status in schools is beyond me, when both viewpoints have the same credentials scientifically.
Let's look at the definition of theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution is a theory, not a law, because it cannot so far be tested in a laboratory and no one has a time machine to go back and see it in action in the past. This is something that operates over long time periods. Natural selection can be seen in some instances, like when dark gypsy moths won out in England in the early 19th century because of all the industrial pollution.
Another thing supporting Evolution is the analysis of DNA.
The speciation that is predicted by the theory of evolution has been observed. We explore natural selection and evolution in animal breeding all over the world and have for centuries.
Creationists (who prefer to take God out of their own theories to try and insinutate them into schools) basically say that life is too complicated for us to understand, so a higher being must have created it. They offer no theory as to how this occurred, just that it was "designed". A proper theory would have to explain the supernatural powers of god and how they are at work in the universe now, as well as make predictions about the future, which they cannot.
The typical Intelligent Design argument is that if you come across a watch laying on the ground, do you think it "evolved" or was created? With a watch, we could see the manufacturer, tavel to their plant, and actually see one being assembled. We could then find their parts and go to the plants they were made at and see them being made. There are physical processes for the making of the watch and we could examine them all. If you come across a watch laying on the ground, you don't just assume that God created it out of thin air and placed it on the ground.
What are the physical processes that the "Intelligent Designer" used to create life? What force caused the atoms to form in the correct way to make the first living cell? Where did that power come from? Did the "Designer" use a machine he build or did he use some kind of supernatural powers that we have no description of? The reason "Intelligent Design" should not be on the same ground as evolution is that it is not a well formed theory. It doesn't explain how life came to be, it just says that it "must" have been designed by someone because it is so complex. To find out how it came to be you must look to Genesis, which just says God created the earth and life in 6 days. No thoeries on how that feat was accomplished.
Intelligent Design is a joke. It belongs right up there with meteorologists predicting the weather based on how angry they think Thor is.
Just thinking... When Twin B decellerates at point C, the distance between him and Twin A appears to grow from 0.9995 light-years to 9.995 light-years. How can this be? In essence, Twin A would move about 9 light-years away in whatever time it took Twin A to decellerate. I think 1g accelleration over about a year (352.5 days) would get someone to about 0.995 c. So at a realistic rate of decelleration, Twin A would appear to move more than 9 light-years in less than a year...
They had a good example of that in the article. If someone in observer B's frame closed the light gates instantaneously with observer A's pole inside them. The gates closing would be simultaneous to observer B. Observer A however would see the front gate close and open just before the front of his pole went through, then would see the rear gate close after the rear of his pole was through it. The two events would not be simultaneous to observer B.
Apparently my explanation works for why we don't see ourselves going faster than light when travelling 20,000 light-years in 2 years (we think we only travelled 2 light-years), but not for the Twins Paradox.
From this explanation. Twin A stays on Earth and Twin B sets off in a spaceship going 0.995 c (time and space will dilate to 1/10th). He reaches a point C that is 9.995 light-years away and heads back at the same speed. Let's assume accelleration is instantaneous. When Twin B leaves earth, both twins agree their clocks read zero. When Twin B reaches point C, Twin A sees that his clock reads 10 years and Twin B's clock reads 1 year. Twin B thinks his clock reads 1 year and Twin A's clock reads 0.1 year. As soon as he turns around, Twin A still thinks B's clock reads 1 year and his clock reads 10 years, but Twin B thinks his clock reads 1 year and Twin A's clock reads 19.9 years. It all depends on your frame of reference, and the accelleration changes that.
Personally, I don't think I will ever understand it. I think it's all philosophical because it is dependant on definitinitions. What does "observe" mean. What is "simultaneous"? Until you start studying special relativity, these terms are pretty easy to understand. I think physicists should come up with new words to describe these relativistic concepts and not use "observe" and "simultaneous" anymore in physics discussions. I have a special relativity textbook and the book contradicts itself on the meaning of those words in the first few chapters.
Numbers are for example, I didn't take the time to figure out the equations...
You can't just wave it off saying the one that experienced the accelleration will have their clock slow down. If you want to calculate how much less one person aged, you go by how long (time and distance) they were travelling at that speed. For example, if I accellerate to 0.999999c in about a year (I think that's about 1g accelleration) and travel 10 light-years and back, then 24 years will have passed on Earth (20 travel + 4 for accelleration), but I will have aged only about 4. If I undergo the same accelleration but travel 10,000 light-years and back, then 20,004 years will have passed on Earth, but I will still have aged only about 4. The accelleration didn't make time pass more slowly, it was the period while I was tavelling at high speed that made it pass more slowly. Take both examples together and the one would seem to have 4 years pass and the other would seem to have 19,984 years pass, even though they experienced the same accellerations.
This also leads to an absurd result from my point of view. I will have only seen 2 years go by, but I will have travelled 20,000 light-years. From my point of view I would have been travelling 10,000 times the speed of light. How can this be?
I think it has to do with contraction. Lorentz contraction is one thing I haven't understood, how you can measure the length of something that is going nearly the speed of light? Apparently, when you are going nearly the speed of light, everything else contracts in the direction of your travel. For instance, if you were going a certain speed and passed a meter stick, it would appear to be only 1 millimeter long, although a stationary observer by the meter stick would see it as 1 meter long.
Now as for how fast you are going, that is all relative as well. If I take off from earth and accellerate to 0.999999c for about a year and travel 10 light-years, I don't think I'm going 10 light years. Space and the galaxy will seem to contract along the direction of my motion. When I get 10 light-years in space, it will appear to me like I have travelled a much shorter distance.
Here's a more concrete example. Let's say that I pass Earth going at velocity V, which slows down time for me to 1/10th normal. Then I travel to a space buoy that you have measured from earth as 10 light years away. Not only will I reach that buoy in about a year, but I will think I have travelled much less than 1 light-year because space along my direction of motion has contracted. During that time, an earth-based observer thinks 10 years have passed. The reason that his clock doesn't appear to slow down for me is because I don't think he's travelling that fast. To me, he has travelled much less than 1 light-year because space contracted and I think it was in 1 year, so he is travelling much slower than the speed of light and subject only to minor relativistic effects.
A company I worked at decided to switch at least some users to Open Office. Saving $300 * 40 licenses seemed like a good idea. Then someone opened a document from an executive and saw some rather embarrassing comments an executive wrote in MS Word but deleted. Well, MS Word doesn't really delete them, they stay in the document. Open Office displayed them to other people and the executive was none too happy. No more Open Office.
I imagine this little "bug" was probably intentional on M$'s part...
Let's see... 1 in 100,000 chance of getting a slow-growing benign tumor after 10 years of use. I'm going to throw my cell phone away immediately!
The odds of getting struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 3,000 (the 1 in 700,000 figure is for each year). I'm going to live in my basement from now on too. (source)
Newspapers aren't people, they're corporations. I guess the government shouldn't let them say what they want either. See, there are human being behind those corporations...
Absolutely. And free speech means expressing our outrage when a major corporation with a history of right-wing bias tries to change the outcome of an election by airing a slanted, inaccurate documentary.
Sure, be outraged, but you can't do anything about it. The right exercised their outrage about Farenheight/911 as well, and that is also a "slanted, inaccurate documentary." It's funny how the biggest supporters of one thing can be the biggest opponents of the same thing when it is done by the other side.
I think it's ridiculous that this is the same company that didn't let the Nightline air where Ted Kopple read the names of those killed in Iraq.
100-200 milliseconds isn't much when you're deciding whether to attack that orc or not, but when trying to intercept a pass... Ever play Everquest? Sometimes you have monsters running off and then 'porting right next to you. That's because the clients use prediction to show where the mobs are and what they're doing and they have to catch up to the servers sometimes. That works fine for an RPG where you're sitting in the same spot for 30 minutes waiting for a certain MOB to spawn, but not so well in fast-paced action games with 20+ human players trying to react quickly to what's going on. They do more advanced prediction in action games like Unreal Tournament, but I don't know if it would be fast enough for a sports game.
They were allowed pens and paper. They just had to give them up beforehand and they would be placed on the podium for them, ready to be used. For some reason, both parties decided to put that in the rules for the debate. They both new about it.
"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper
and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."
Doesn't seem too difficult to understand to me. Anyway, checkout the quicktime movie linked to in this story. It sure looks like a piece of paper to me. Maybe he puts the pen down and picks up some folded paper and unfolds it...
"And what if the movie ends up being made? It might if things go right."
One of the guys that was "cast" for the movie said it was absolutely the worst thing he had ever read. I can't wait to see the show just to see what the ridiculous movie was supposed to be about:)
Of course you can't imply a license to the patents and assume you have the rights to use any patents, but you can't distribute a GPL program unless there's a royalty-free license to any patents in it. In the GPL there is a summary:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
And section 7 is the actual language of the GPL that makes it clear that you can't distribute a GPL work without a patent license that permits royalty-free redistribution of the Program:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
This is probably true. How many attorneys would advise their clients to settle, possibly even giving up partial ownership of the company, without any evidence of wrongdoing?
This other hypothetical company doesn't even have SCO's excuses for not revealing code. SCO supposedly doesn't want to give out what is their's because then it would be open. Patents are already open, available to anyone that wants to search for them.
"and that license did not specifically preclude it"
They are trying to license for a fee if closed source or get stake in the company (probably much more money) if open source. If open source, at least GPL, they would have to give everyone a free license to use their patented technology, so it would devalue their patent.
If you're talking about why the "scam" might only pertain to one, that is presumably how they discvoered that it infringed their patent. If it was a closed source product, they probably never would have been able to find out, or verify for sure anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
variables a 256 and c 262 both point to the same location (location 254)
Isn't one of the requirements for a patent that the invention work?
Mega-complexioned
Maybe they just don't like you.
So he has memorized the phone book for every town in the US? Oh, and the student had his own name in his hometown phone book and not his parents' names? This just seems fishy to me. Maybe it's just not told very well...
Maybe 'funny'... Is this supposed to mean he could cure himself? Oh, wait, he would just know what everyone else knows about the disease and not how to cure it...
And conversely if your candidate is doing poorly, it may be the motivation someone needs to go out and vote. The vote in Iowa last year wasn't as close as in Florida (it was 4000 some votes), but that was only 2 votes per precinct. If I got two people to go vote and someone else in each precinct did the same, the winner would have been different.
As for the creation of the Sun and the Earth, Astronomers have observed such things happening in other parts of our galaxy. Discs of gas and dust spin and they have modeled it forming clumps for planets and the center collapsing and heating to form a star.
Another thing supporting Evolution is the analysis of DNA.
The speciation that is predicted by the theory of evolution has been observed. We explore natural selection and evolution in animal breeding all over the world and have for centuries.
Creationists (who prefer to take God out of their own theories to try and insinutate them into schools) basically say that life is too complicated for us to understand, so a higher being must have created it. They offer no theory as to how this occurred, just that it was "designed". A proper theory would have to explain the supernatural powers of god and how they are at work in the universe now, as well as make predictions about the future, which they cannot.
The typical Intelligent Design argument is that if you come across a watch laying on the ground, do you think it "evolved" or was created? With a watch, we could see the manufacturer, tavel to their plant, and actually see one being assembled. We could then find their parts and go to the plants they were made at and see them being made. There are physical processes for the making of the watch and we could examine them all. If you come across a watch laying on the ground, you don't just assume that God created it out of thin air and placed it on the ground.
What are the physical processes that the "Intelligent Designer" used to create life? What force caused the atoms to form in the correct way to make the first living cell? Where did that power come from? Did the "Designer" use a machine he build or did he use some kind of supernatural powers that we have no description of? The reason "Intelligent Design" should not be on the same ground as evolution is that it is not a well formed theory. It doesn't explain how life came to be, it just says that it "must" have been designed by someone because it is so complex. To find out how it came to be you must look to Genesis, which just says God created the earth and life in 6 days. No thoeries on how that feat was accomplished.
Intelligent Design is a joke. It belongs right up there with meteorologists predicting the weather based on how angry they think Thor is.
Just thinking... When Twin B decellerates at point C, the distance between him and Twin A appears to grow from 0.9995 light-years to 9.995 light-years. How can this be? In essence, Twin A would move about 9 light-years away in whatever time it took Twin A to decellerate. I think 1g accelleration over about a year (352.5 days) would get someone to about 0.995 c. So at a realistic rate of decelleration, Twin A would appear to move more than 9 light-years in less than a year...
They had a good example of that in the article. If someone in observer B's frame closed the light gates instantaneously with observer A's pole inside them. The gates closing would be simultaneous to observer B. Observer A however would see the front gate close and open just before the front of his pole went through, then would see the rear gate close after the rear of his pole was through it. The two events would not be simultaneous to observer B.
From this explanation. Twin A stays on Earth and Twin B sets off in a spaceship going 0.995 c (time and space will dilate to 1/10th). He reaches a point C that is 9.995 light-years away and heads back at the same speed. Let's assume accelleration is instantaneous. When Twin B leaves earth, both twins agree their clocks read zero. When Twin B reaches point C, Twin A sees that his clock reads 10 years and Twin B's clock reads 1 year. Twin B thinks his clock reads 1 year and Twin A's clock reads 0.1 year. As soon as he turns around, Twin A still thinks B's clock reads 1 year and his clock reads 10 years, but Twin B thinks his clock reads 1 year and Twin A's clock reads 19.9 years. It all depends on your frame of reference, and the accelleration changes that.
Personally, I don't think I will ever understand it. I think it's all philosophical because it is dependant on definitinitions. What does "observe" mean. What is "simultaneous"? Until you start studying special relativity, these terms are pretty easy to understand. I think physicists should come up with new words to describe these relativistic concepts and not use "observe" and "simultaneous" anymore in physics discussions. I have a special relativity textbook and the book contradicts itself on the meaning of those words in the first few chapters.
You can't just wave it off saying the one that experienced the accelleration will have their clock slow down. If you want to calculate how much less one person aged, you go by how long (time and distance) they were travelling at that speed. For example, if I accellerate to 0.999999c in about a year (I think that's about 1g accelleration) and travel 10 light-years and back, then 24 years will have passed on Earth (20 travel + 4 for accelleration), but I will have aged only about 4. If I undergo the same accelleration but travel 10,000 light-years and back, then 20,004 years will have passed on Earth, but I will still have aged only about 4. The accelleration didn't make time pass more slowly, it was the period while I was tavelling at high speed that made it pass more slowly. Take both examples together and the one would seem to have 4 years pass and the other would seem to have 19,984 years pass, even though they experienced the same accellerations.
This also leads to an absurd result from my point of view. I will have only seen 2 years go by, but I will have travelled 20,000 light-years. From my point of view I would have been travelling 10,000 times the speed of light. How can this be?
I think it has to do with contraction. Lorentz contraction is one thing I haven't understood, how you can measure the length of something that is going nearly the speed of light? Apparently, when you are going nearly the speed of light, everything else contracts in the direction of your travel. For instance, if you were going a certain speed and passed a meter stick, it would appear to be only 1 millimeter long, although a stationary observer by the meter stick would see it as 1 meter long.
Now as for how fast you are going, that is all relative as well. If I take off from earth and accellerate to 0.999999c for about a year and travel 10 light-years, I don't think I'm going 10 light years. Space and the galaxy will seem to contract along the direction of my motion. When I get 10 light-years in space, it will appear to me like I have travelled a much shorter distance.
Here's a more concrete example. Let's say that I pass Earth going at velocity V, which slows down time for me to 1/10th normal. Then I travel to a space buoy that you have measured from earth as 10 light years away. Not only will I reach that buoy in about a year, but I will think I have travelled much less than 1 light-year because space along my direction of motion has contracted. During that time, an earth-based observer thinks 10 years have passed. The reason that his clock doesn't appear to slow down for me is because I don't think he's travelling that fast. To me, he has travelled much less than 1 light-year because space contracted and I think it was in 1 year, so he is travelling much slower than the speed of light and subject only to minor relativistic effects.
I imagine this little "bug" was probably intentional on M$'s part...
The odds of getting struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 3,000 (the 1 in 700,000 figure is for each year). I'm going to live in my basement from now on too. (source)
I like this quote from one of the web pages:
Sure, be outraged, but you can't do anything about it. The right exercised their outrage about Farenheight/911 as well, and that is also a "slanted, inaccurate documentary." It's funny how the biggest supporters of one thing can be the biggest opponents of the same thing when it is done by the other side.I think it's ridiculous that this is the same company that didn't let the Nightline air where Ted Kopple read the names of those killed in Iraq.
100-200 milliseconds isn't much when you're deciding whether to attack that orc or not, but when trying to intercept a pass... Ever play Everquest? Sometimes you have monsters running off and then 'porting right next to you. That's because the clients use prediction to show where the mobs are and what they're doing and they have to catch up to the servers sometimes. That works fine for an RPG where you're sitting in the same spot for 30 minutes waiting for a certain MOB to spawn, but not so well in fast-paced action games with 20+ human players trying to react quickly to what's going on. They do more advanced prediction in action games like Unreal Tournament, but I don't know if it would be fast enough for a sports game.
They were allowed pens and paper. They just had to give them up beforehand and they would be placed on the podium for them, ready to be used. For some reason, both parties decided to put that in the rules for the debate. They both new about it.
It's perfectly all right to rip the tag off of a mattress you own. They clearly state that they are not to be removed except by the purchaser.
One of the guys that was "cast" for the movie said it was absolutely the worst thing he had ever read. I can't wait to see the show just to see what the ridiculous movie was supposed to be about :)
This other hypothetical company doesn't even have SCO's excuses for not revealing code. SCO supposedly doesn't want to give out what is their's because then it would be open. Patents are already open, available to anyone that wants to search for them.
They are trying to license for a fee if closed source or get stake in the company (probably much more money) if open source. If open source, at least GPL, they would have to give everyone a free license to use their patented technology, so it would devalue their patent.
If you're talking about why the "scam" might only pertain to one, that is presumably how they discvoered that it infringed their patent. If it was a closed source product, they probably never would have been able to find out, or verify for sure anyway.